Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/810

SARLA YADAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

HP & OTHER - Opp.Party(s)

12 May 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision: 12.05.2016

First Appeal No. 810/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 16.06.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 27/2011 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East) Convenient Shopping Centre, Saini Enclave Delhi-92)

In the matter of:

Sarla Yadav

D/o Sh. Dev Chand Singh

R/o H-84, H-Block, Gali No. 5

Ganga Vihar Delhi-110094                                 .........Appellant

 

Versus

 

1. Authorised Signatory for

HP Computer

Land direct plus U-199

Vikas Marg, Shakarpur

•  

 

2. HP (Invent) Resignation (India) Ltd.

Service Call Centre

E-48/4, Ist Floor

Okhla Ind. Area Phase II

New Delhi-110024

 

3. HP 6^th Floor Lower-D

Global Business Park

Mehrauli Gurgaon Road

Gurgaon. b.o. Gurgaon-122001

and main head office, Hewitt, Packages

India Sales Prevents Ltd. 24

Salarturia, Area

Adugadi Hosur Road Bangalore-560030 ..........Respondents

                                                                  

CORAM

 

N P KAUSHIK                         -                  Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

1.     Present appeal is directed against the orders dated 16.06.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum (East) Saini Enclave Delhi-110092. Vide said orders, the complaint filed by the complainant Ms. Sarla Yadav was dismissed.
2.     Facts in brief of the case are that the complainant purchased from OP-1 a computer on 06.10.2005. Warranty for a period of one year was provided. The complainant reported the problem in his computer first on 19.08.2008 i.e. after a period of three years from the date of purchase. Necessary repairs were carried out by the OP-2. On 09.03.2009, again a problem relating to display came to the surface. RAM was found dirty and the same was refixed by the engineer of the OP-2.
3.     Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the complainant failed to produce the extended warranted documents. It was thus found ‘not a case of manufacturing defect’.
4.     I have heard the arguments addressed by the Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant Sh. Pawan Dhar Advocate, AR of the OP-2 Sh. Devashish Dhar and Counsel for the OP-3 Sh. Dinesh Advocate.
5.     No document has been placed on record by the complainant in respect of her claim that she enjoyed extended warranty. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the appeal is devoid of merits. The same is hence dismissed.
6.     Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
7.     FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)